Georgia Constitution

I my be reading into this but I had to pull up the Bill of Rights to be sure I could remember what they are. I was looking at the 5 of the first 10 "the People" issue and thought about looking at the Georgia Bill of Rights.

Paragraph VIII. Arms, right to keep and bear. The right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the
manner in which arms may be borne.

The way I read this is that almost all Georgia firearm laws are since it states that the "General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne" key word manner, not place or the persons legal (?) status.

Does anyone else think this, do any of you well educated have a legal opinion?

. . . the manner in which arms may be borne" key word manner, not place or the persons legal (?) status.

Does anyone else think this, do any of you well educated have a legal opinion?

Click to expand...

Well, how about the people who wrote it? Would they qualify as having a competent opinion on the subject?

From the dissent in Strickland v. State, 137 Ga. 1 (1911) (all emphases in bold are supplied by me, and I added a paragraph break where there is none in the original).

But in looking to the real intent of the framers of the Constitution, there is still more light on the subject disclosed by Small's Report of the Constitutional Convention of 1877. â€œOne of the aids in constitutional construction is an examination of the proceedings of the constitutional convention.â€ Butts County v. Jackson Banking Co., 129 Ga. 801, 805, 60 S. E. 149, 151, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 567, 121 Am. St. Rep. 244. See, also, Wellborn v. Estes, 70 Ga. 390, 401; Blocker v. Boswell, 109 Ga. 233, 34 S. E. 289; State v. Central R. Co., 109 Ga. 728, 35 S. E. 37, 48 L. R. A. 351; Epping v. Columbus, 117 Ga. 264(4), 271, 43 S. E. 803; Park v. Candler, 114 Ga. 466, 40 S. E. 523. By reference to Small's Report (page 56), it will be seen that section 19 of the Bill of Rights was: â€œA well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have the power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.â€ When this section was under consideration, as appears on page 91, it was referred to as section 23, and a motion was made which in effect struck â€œa well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free people,â€ for the reason that such a declaration had already been made in the section of the Bill of Rights on militia. After that amendment was carried, Mr. Toombs moved â€œto strike out all after the word â€˜infringe,â€™ and strike out â€˜but the General Assembly shall have the power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne,â€™ insisting that â€˜the Legislature has no power to prescribe how the people shall bear arms; that they shall not carry them in their boots, or anywhere else that they want to. I think the people have the right to keep and bear arms as they choose for their protection.â€â€™ On the other hand, Mr. Warren urged: â€œI hope the gentleman's motion will not prevail. The experience of all of us is that the General Assembly should have the right to regulate the manner of keeping and bearing arms. There is nothing which provokes bloodshed so much as the indiscriminate bearing of concealed weapons.â€ The motion to amend was lost.

Other amendments which were offered, but not adopted, were: (a) By inserting the word â€œplaceâ€ after the word â€œmanner,â€ so as to give the Legislature the power to prescribe where a man shall carry arms and where not; (b) â€œwhen off their freeholds or away from their homes.â€ Thus it appears from the debates that the members of the convention who framed the provision as it appears in the Constitution of 1877 had in mind that â€œarms,â€ as referred to in the clause as adopted, contemplated, not merely such arms of warfare as might be used by the militia, but especially small weapons which might be concealed about the person, which was in keeping with the interpretation theretofore placed on the word by the court.

As Mr. Neisler indicates, the very case I quote holds different. I quote from the dissent. The majority opinion cares not what the people who wrote this provision in the constitution thought on the matter (specifically rejecting an amendment to grant the power to regulate "place" to the General Assembly) but held that "manner" necessarily includes the power to regulate "place."

By the provision of the Constitution in question, it was intended to limit the police power, when it was declared that â€œthe right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.â€ This declaration was modified all that it was intended that it should be modified by the other express declaration, â€œthe General Assembly shall have the power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.â€ This was affirmative action upon the part of the people in adopting the Constitution, and shows that the matter of restricting the Legislature in the exercise of the police power of the state, relative to the right of the people to bear arms, received special consideration, and that there was no intent to further qualify the broad declaration which favored the right to bear arms. It was intended to guarantee to the people the right to bear arms, so that the Legislature could do no more than to regulate the manner in which they should be borne. This guaranty was to all the â€œpeople,â€ and was never intended to be restricted merely to those of the militia, or those intending to become such.

Mr. Toombs, referred to above, is an interesting character, and it is he after whom the county of Toombs is named. He dominated the constitutional convention of 1877, even though he was technically not an American citizen at the time.

It was intended to guarantee to the people the right to bear arms, so that the Legislature could do no more than to regulate the manner in which they should be borne. This guaranty was to all the â€œpeople,â€ and was never intended to be restricted merely to those of the militia, or those intending to become such.

Click to expand...

They can tell us how they can be borne, but not where they can be borne.

As Mr. Neisler indicates, the very case I quote holds different. I quote from the dissent. The majority opinion cares not what the people who wrote this provision in the constitution thought on the matter (specifically rejecting an amendment to grant the power to regulate "place" to the General Assembly) but held that "manner" necessarily includes the power to regulate "place."

As Mr. Neisler indicates, the very case I quote holds different. I quote from the dissent. The majority opinion cares not what the people who wrote this provision in the constitution thought on the matter (specifically rejecting an amendment to grant the power to regulate "place" to the General Assembly) but held that "manner" necessarily includes the power to regulate "place."

Click to expand...

[/quote:1hpp875r]

So MP, does this mean that if all else fails in the near future that it would not be a viable option to sue the State? Or would it just be a very long hard battle without much of a chance?

What would it take to sue claiming that most of the GA (firearm) laws are against our own State constitution?

I wonder (there I go thinking again) if the legal 'hook' could be through the 'Freedman's Bureau Act of 1866' which specifically referenced the Second Amendment.

The Freedman's Bureau Act (1866)

Sec. 14. And be it furhter enacted, That in every State or district where the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has been interrupted by the rebellion . . . the right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens of such State or district without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery(italics mine, Wiley).

I wonder (there I go thinking again) if the legal 'hook' could be through the 'Freedman's Bureau Act of 1866' which specifically referenced the Second Amendment.

The Freedman's Bureau Act (1866)

Sec. 14. And be it furhter enacted, That in every State or district where the ordinary course of judicial proceedings has been interrupted by the rebellion . . . the right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens of such State or district without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery(italics mine, Wiley).